Friday, April 27, 2007



Voting to end the war III

The US Congress has set a deadline for the US to withdraw from Iraq. Both the Senate and the House passed the Iraq supplemental funding bill through its final stages today, and both voted to make continued funding of the war contingent on troop withdrawals beginning by October and complete by 31 March 2008. Bush is of course blustering about a veto, but as the withdrawal plan is contained in the very bill funding the war, he will be playing chicken with his troop's salaries (and suplies). While the Democrats don't have the numbers to overcome a veto, nothing is stopping them from waiting two months to add a sense of urgency, then again passing a bill which again makes funding contingent - or not passing one at all. In short, with COngress holding the purse strings, this is not a fight Bush can win.

Meanwhile, Congressman Dennis Kucinich has submitted articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney, charging that he manipulated intelligence to fabricate the threat of Iraqi WMD, deceived Congress about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and undermined the national security of the US by threatening Iran. It has no hope of success - impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which the Dems just don't have - but these are "high crimes and misdemeanours", more so if you accept the joke of the Clinton impeachment (Clinton lied about his sex life, which was no-one else's business anyway; Cheney lied his way onto a war. Quite a difference there). The charges deserve a thorough going over, and even if the vote fails in the end, it will be an important step towards holding the Bush Administration to account.

11 comments:

The reason Clinton was impeached (and the same issue has troubled several people in the Bush administration) is not that he "lied about his sex life" but that he "lied about his sex life while under oath to a grand jury."

Posted by jjh : 4/27/2007 11:56:00 AM

ldoofPerjury has to concern a relevant fact in a court case.

The orginal case against Clinton was that he was having consensual sex with a staff member. Since it isn't actually illegal for consenting adults to have sex, even in America, the judge in that case eventually ruled that there was no case to answer.

So his evidence wasn't relevant, he didn't commit perjury, and the Senate acquitted him.

Posted by Rich : 4/27/2007 01:57:00 PM

The lawsuit was about having sexually harrassed Paula Jones. In his defence he swore he had not had sex with Lewsinky. This was false and he lost his law practising certificate for it.

It was also deemed prejudicial to the Jones case, his lie, and he had to pay her lots of money to settle because of the lie.

Posted by David Farrar : 4/27/2007 04:13:00 PM

Actually its World War IV.

World War III was the war against communism won by

Ronald Reagan
Margaret Thatcher
Pope John Paul II

And withdrawing from Iraq will not end it.

Rather it will give the enemy heart and as Iraq distintigrates and is partitioned by Syria and Iran the major battle grounds will shift to Israel and Turkey and most probably Europe.

Posted by andrei : 4/27/2007 04:54:00 PM

Last I check it was the insurgents (read terrorists) that were doing all the killing.

Vote to stop that.

Posted by ScrubOne : 4/27/2007 06:55:00 PM

I don't know much about international law, but if you can prove that Cheney and others in the administration knowingly lied about the possibility of Iraq having WMD, then that would strengthen the case for the war being illegal, since it would be difficult to argue that the justification for it was self-defence. Is this right?

jjh and David: I think the point I/S is making is that lying about sexual harassment or something similar is pretty trivial compared with lying in order to start a massively destructive war.

Posted by Anonymous : 4/28/2007 11:29:00 AM

World War III was the war against communism won by

Ronald Reagan
Margaret Thatcher
Pope John Paul II


Don't tell China.

Posted by Danyl : 4/28/2007 11:50:00 AM

I think China already know, DIM. That's why they are stepping very carefully with allowing the Vatican control over Catholic Bishops in China. Who knows what might happen once the Vatican does get control.

Posted by Lucyna : 4/28/2007 12:28:00 PM

Who knows what might happen once the Vatican does get control.

If there's one thing a country with 1.5 billion people needs it's a bunch of superstitious fanatics railing against birth control.

Posted by Danyl Mclauchlan : 4/28/2007 06:06:00 PM

The Chinese are already used to micro-management from a central bureaucracy, so they probably wouldn't notice any difference if the Vatican gained control.

Posted by Psycho Milt : 4/28/2007 08:27:00 PM

Kucinich is making a tactical mistake. Better to leave Cheny in place as the left's favourite bogeyman than risk yet another partisan impeachment trial. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Cheney could resign on health grounds, allowing Bush to nominate a new VP, maybe Thompson, who just happens to be a potentially good '08 candidate. The Dems in the Senate could hardly deny Bush his VP choice, given that Pelosi scares even them.

Posted by Walsingham : 4/29/2007 11:37:00 AM